CIP-0102 | Version 2 Standard & CIP-0088 Extension

[SamDelaney]

This pull request introduces version 2 of CIP-102, including support for multiple royalty policies (intrapolicy royalties) & optional extension of CIP-88. It clarifies how royalty tokens are constructed, referenced, and discovered, and provide detailed examples for implementors.

CIP-0102 Standard Specification:

• Updated README.md for CIP-0102, expanding the royalty datum format with support for multiple royalty policies with numeric postfixes and integration with CIP-88 via a new extension. Includes detailed field descriptions, rationale, example calculations, and discovery workflows for both off-chain and on-chain contexts.

CIP-88 Extension:

• Extended the CIP-88 master CDDL schemas (CIP88_Master_v1.cddl, CIP88_Master_v2.cddl) to include the new cip102-details field, enabling collections to advertise their royalty tokens directly in their registration certificates.

• Added a CIP-88 extension specification for CIP-0102 (CIP-0088/CIPs/0102/README.md), detailing how royalty token asset names are to be listed in CIP-88 registrations and providing usage examples for both single and multiple royalty policies.

• Added a new CDDL schema (CIP102_v1.cddl) and example JSON (CIP102_v1.json) defining the structure and serialization of the royalty datum metadata, including support for multiple royalty token asset names.

[SamDelaney]

Tagging @Crypto2099 because CIP-88

[rphair]

@SamDelaney this is on the agenda for Triage at the next CIP meeting: https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/132 — besides @Crypto2099's review I would also hope to get from the meeting a list of representative developers to tag from projects that might have live or in-progress implementations: to ensure we get a comprehensive stakeholder review & properly announce that a new version is on the way.

Also, if you could identify key parts of CIP-0088 and CIP-0102 that you've added or substantially changed, it might facilitate our meeting preliminary review if you added links to those parts in your OP above.

[rphair]

@SamDelaney thanks for introducing this at the CIP meeting today where it was confirmed all around as a valid update.

I also noted at the meeting today that NFT royalties — though NFTs themselves are no longer so popular — might also suit more progressive use cases like interest or dividends from RWAs... and though CIP-0102 might not need to mention this latter use case (though you could feel free to add it) it does mean we should still value & work on the maintenance of these protocols.

Meeting also confirmed the request for more tagging from industry projects & appreciates that @SamDelaney will be circulating such a request. Since backward compatibility issues are not likely, this should proceed toward merge if there is no dispute from project stakeholders or relevant developers.

@SamDelaney please remind the editors once there's been such a review period so we can proceed toward final review and "last check".

[SamDelaney]

Tagging relevant cnft devs to make sure everyone has a chance to comment if they want:

@solidsnakedev @BrockCruess @yHSJ @colll78 @PatrickTobler @alessandrokonrad @Dodilanne